2022 Bears Offseason

[Jiddy]

Stop being a coward. Answer the question. Indy sucking whether intentional or not (for the sake argument) landed Luck, was this a bad move? Did indy sucking help or hurt them?

Case closed.

The colts got 3 playoff appearances out of Luck...all of which they were bounced before the Super Bowl. What the hell kind of barometer is the Andrew Luck scenario anyway? I mean...I guess it's not as bad as 1/8 playoff appearances with Cutler. But still, if you're gonna make a point, make it at least somewhat relevant. Luck accomplished minimal in his career. Indy hasn't been in the Super Bowl since they drafted him 10 seasons ago. If they truly tanked for him, they're f*cking retarded and history has spoken in that regard.

 

[BsGenius]

The colts got 3 playoff appearances out of Luck...all of which they were bounced before the Super Bowl. What the hell kind of barometer is the Andrew Luck scenario anyway? I mean...I guess it's not as bad as 1/8 playoff appearances with Cutler. But still, if you're gonna make a point, make it at least somewhat relevant. Luck accomplished minimal in his career. Indy hasn't been in the Super Bowl since they drafted him 10 seasons ago. If they truly tanked for him, they're f*cking retarded and history has spoken in that regard.

ONE person does not win or lose games. You can't say Luck was a bad pick because the TEAM lost. Was Roquan Smith a bad pick because we sucked last year?

Geez are you dumb as dirt.

 

[Jiddy]

ONE person does not win or lose games. You can't say Luck was a bad pick because the TEAM lost. Was Roquan Smith a bad pick because we sucked last year?

Geez are you dumb as dirt.

I certainly will look at the overall impact of a situation rather than just a hurdle of "improvement of any kind" if we're talking about a team tanking intentionally for better draft picks. The moral implications, much less the potential for consequence (IE NFL coming down on the team with monetary or even future draft pick consequence) is highly relevant.

If your threshold for integrity is low where you're just like..."Yep...anything for a little bit o' improvement", that's fine. You do you. (Granted, I would say you are displacing your low threshold onto others which is pretty lowbrow.) My comment was based on the fact that if a team was to do what you say they should be doing-tanking-then yes, as a team you'd hope they at least made it worth their while. I still don't agree with it, but at least I could understand.

To sell yourselves out? F*ck all that. To sell yourselves out and still not reach the promised land? Double f*ck all that. Or, in your presented low bar case, to sell out to marginally improve...Quadruple f*ck that with a cherry on top.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Stop being a coward. Answer the question. Indy sucking whether intentional or not (for the sake argument) landed Luck, was this a bad move? Did indy sucking help or hurt them?

Case closed.

Indy purposely let Manning walk away and sucked for a full season then drafted Luck. He had a decent career, got hurt a lot, retired way earlier than expected. Indy was left with no SB appearances or trophies.

Manning went to Denver...went to 2 SBs....won 1 of them.

Indy failed.

They parted ways with a HOF QB in order to draft the next big thing and the next big thing won't ever make the HOF because his career ended way too early.

Case closed. You're a moron.

 

[richig07]

I certainly will look at the overall impact of a situation rather than just a hurdle of "improvement of any kind" if we're talking about a team tanking intentionally for better draft picks. The moral implications, much less the potential for consequence (IE NFL coming down on the team with monetary or even future draft pick consequence) is highly relevant.

If your threshold for integrity is low where you're just like..."Yep...anything for a little bit o' improvement", that's fine. You do you. (Granted, I would say you are displacing your low threshold onto others which is pretty lowbrow.) My comment was based on the fact that if a team was to do what you say they should be doing-tanking-then yes, as a team you'd hope they at least made it worth their while. I still don't agree with it, but at least I could understand.

To sell yourselves out? F*ck all that. To sell yourselves out and still not reach the promised land? Double f*ck all that. Or, in your presented low bar case, to sell out to marginally improve...Quadruple f*ck that with a cherry on top.

Are we still really having this tank debate? How in the love of holy hell does this still take over EVERY thread?

 

[BsGenius]

Indy purposely let Manning walk away and sucked for a full season then drafted Luck. He had a decent career, got hurt a lot, retired way earlier than expected. Indy was left with no SB appearances or trophies.

Manning went to Denver...went to 2 SBs....won 1 of them.

Indy failed.

They parted ways with a HOF QB in order to draft the next big thing and the next big thing won't ever make the HOF because his career ended way too early.

Case closed. You're a moron.

In summation:

Luck couldn't win SB for Indy so getting him was a failure?
Manning won SB for Denver (apparently singlehandedly)

But

"Wins aren't just a QB stat"

Contradict much? Grey pubes losing it.

Case back open.

 

[richig07]

The colts got 3 playoff appearances out of Luck...all of which they were bounced before the Super Bowl. What the hell kind of barometer is the Andrew Luck scenario anyway? I mean...I guess it's not as bad as 1/8 playoff appearances with Cutler. But still, if you're gonna make a point, make it at least somewhat relevant. Luck accomplished minimal in his career. Indy hasn't been in the Super Bowl since they drafted him 10 seasons ago. If they truly tanked for him, they're f*cking retarded and history has spoken in that regard.

Oh, and I actually get this point on BS's part. I use the exact same analogy in conversations with people. I hate the idea of tanking. But... if there's only 2-3 games left and there's an "Andruw Luck" type prospect about to go #1 in next year's draft? That's the one time I'm going to hope we drop a couple.

It's not that Andruw Luck is the greatest QB of our time. However, he was the highest ever regarded QB prospect of our time. In fact, no one immediately comes to mind who was thought more highly of coming out of college.

 

[BsGenius]

I certainly will look at the overall impact of a situation rather than just a hurdle of "improvement of any kind" if we're talking about a team tanking intentionally for better draft picks. The moral implications, much less the potential for consequence (IE NFL coming down on the team with monetary or even future draft pick consequence) is highly relevant.

Moral implications? What are you fucking talking about? If you're going to start using morality as a measuring stick in this game, tanking to get a better player is not the place you should start. Lets talk about DeShaun Watson, or Michael Vick. Morality? NFL by far is the leader when it comes to players with criminal background. Get a fucking clue and get off of your stupid soap box, you are too dumb to have a conversation like this.

If your threshold for integrity is low where you're just like..."Yep...anything for a little bit o' improvement", that's fine. You do you. (Granted, I would say you are displacing your low threshold onto others which is pretty lowbrow.) My comment was based on the fact that if a team was to do what you say they should be doing-tanking-then yes, as a team you'd hope they at least made it worth their while. I still don't agree with it, but at least I could understand.

Landing Luck was the right move by Indy. But like i said, you need to do a hundred other things to have a winning organization. Indy failed in the other areas.

To sell yourselves out? F*ck all that. To sell yourselves out and still not reach the promised land? Double f*ck all that. Or, in your presented low bar case, to sell out to marginally improve...Quadruple f*ck that with a cherry on top.

Sell yourself out, morality. lol. You clueless naive dolt.

 

[BearsWillWin]

In summation:

Luck couldn't win SB for Indy so getting him was a failure?
Manning won SB for Denver (apparently singlehandedly)

But

"Wins aren't just a QB stat"

Contradict much? Grey pubes losing it.

Case back open.

Indy “tanked” and then cut a SB and MVP winning QB to draft Luck. Never won another SB. Barely won playoff games. And Luck retired early.

But to you…..that’s success.

You’re a failed abortion.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Landing Luck was the right move by Indy. But like i said, you need to do a hundred other things to have a winning organization. Indy failed in the other areas

Previous to Manning hurting his neck and sitting a season out….the Colts were a winning organization. Manning went on to put up record numbers in Denver after being cut. Indy literally downgraded their QB and never recovered.

But go on.

 

[Jiddy]

Oh, and I actually get this point on BS's part. I use the exact same analogy in conversations with people. I hate the idea of tanking. But... if there's only 2-3 games left and there's an "Andruw Luck" type prospect about to go #1 in next year's draft? That's the one time I'm going to hope we drop a couple.

It's not that Andruw Luck is the greatest QB of our time. However, he was the highest ever regarded QB prospect of our time. In fact, no one immediately comes to mind who was thought more highly of coming out of college.

I’m not really certain what the repercussion would be, but I’m pretty sure the NFL would come down hard on an organization if it was discovered and proven that there was a concerted effort to tank. Wouldn’t doubt future draft pick penalties honestly…Putting morality and the idea of what is right and wrong in competition aside (or I’ll have to hear idiot cry more), consequences should also be considered if you are making this determination. What if a “generational talent” player is in following year’s draft and your org has been punished out of it?

Fan promotion of tanking is ridiculous and encouraging genius through the use of one extreme outlier example-which minimizes the act-“oh 2-3 games only”- and maximizes the return -“generational talent”-is reaching pretty hard for a justification and is egregious in terms of “ends justifying the means.” Not that Indy did that 2-3 game thing anyway. They sucked from day 1 that season. So if they were tanking, they went full bore from day 1. Doubtful.

 

[richig07]

I’m not really certain what the repercussion would be, but I’m pretty sure the NFL would come down hard on an organization if it was discovered and proven that there was a concerted effort to tank. Wouldn’t doubt future draft pick penalties honestly…Putting morality and the idea of what is right and wrong in competition aside (or I’ll have to hear idiot cry more), consequences should also be considered if you are making this determination. What if a “generational talent” player is in following year’s draft and your org has been punished out of it?

Fan promotion of tanking is ridiculous and encouraging genius through the use of one extreme outlier example-which minimizes the act-“oh 2-3 games only”- and maximizes the return -“generational talent”-is reaching pretty hard for a justification and is egregious in terms of “ends justifying the means.” Not that Indy did that 2-3 game thing anyway. They sucked from day 1 that season. So if they were tanking, they went full bore from day 1. Doubtful.

My post only had to do with the Luck analogy. Nothing more. This never ending debate that keeps taking over every thread annoys the living fuck out of me and I want nothing to do with it.

That said... this isn't getting involved in the argument. However, I will point out that it's not uncommon, in the least for teams towards the bottom 10 in draft positioning to rest starters in the final game or the final half of it. In 2016, we played Minnesota the final week. We were 3-12. The game was within reach at half and we played David f'n Fales at QB in the 2nd half. Just because...

So, teams do get away with some stuff.

 

[BsGenius]

Indy “tanked” and then cut a SB and MVP winning QB to draft Luck. Never won another SB. Barely won playoff games. And Luck retired early.

But to you…..that’s success.

You’re a failed abortion.

The purpose of tanking is to get a higher draft pick. You stupidly think tanking's purpose is to win the SB. As if simply tanking = automatic superbowl! How stupid are you exactly?

 

[BsGenius]

Idiots still believe you tank to win the superbowl. No single move will win you the superbowl. Like I said multiple times now, there are probably 100 moves or more you have to get right to win. And it starts with drafting good players. And the higher the pick the better likelihood of you drafting better players (yes dumb dumb, i know it's not guaranteed).

Grey pubes and his other idiot minions are unable comprehend the purpose of tanking. It's not 1 to 1, it's 1 of many. I can't be any clearer than this. They are simply just too dumb to understand.

 

[wood20ks]

Im with Rich on this,time to put the " tanking" talk to rest.......

Whoever wants to place a thread dedicated to this nonsense and keep it there would be cool,otherwise Ill just delete every post in every thread every day.......

I think everyone who posts here has their own opinions which makes for great talk,but the same damn arguement over and over for months gets annoying.....

Theres a few posters have not seen in awhile that may have given it up because of the same over and over again crap.....
Poaters are dwindiling down....
And we need to keep everyone around......

 

[BearsWillWin]

The purpose of tanking is to get a higher draft pick. You stupidly think tanking's purpose is to win the SB.

And what is the purpose of a higher draft pick?

Answer: To get, potentially, better player(s)

And why would you want better players?

Answer: To win more games

And why would you want to win more games?

Answer: To make the playoffs.

And why make the playoffs?

Answer to win the SB.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Like I said multiple times now, there are probably 100 moves or more you have to get right to win.

There are 53 men on an active roster...what are the 47 other things?

 

[BsGenius]

There are 53 men on an active roster...what are the 47 other things?

Aside from the roster? The coach, the gm, the game planning, preparation, coaching, a little luck, oh just 6 off the time of my head.

Keep running my little bitch

 

[Lake Shore Drive]

Im with Rich on this,time to put the " tanking" talk to rest.......

Good luck with this when we have our resident Rain Man on this board.

 

[wood20ks]

Good luck with this when we have our resident Rain Man on this board.

Well no one will get the last word,cause there wont be any words.....Unless of course rheres a tanking thread,then its no hlds- barred......And I wont have to sift thru it to find a post I wanna read.....